Subrata Roy Gets Reprieve In Income Tax Case In Delhi High Court

10/04/2015 6:31 PM IST
|
Updated
15/07/2016 8:25 AM IST

PTI

NEW! HIGHLIGHT AND SHARE

Highlight text to share via Facebook and Twitter

PRAKASH SINGH via Getty Images

Security officials escort India's Sahara group chairman Subrata Roy (C) on his arrival at the Supreme Court in New Delhi on March 4, 2014. Black ink was thrown on Sahara chairman Subrata Roy's face as he arrived at the Supreme Court , escorted by police personnel. The attacker, who managed to get close to Roy in the crowd and threw black ink on him, claimed to be Manoj Sharma, a lawyer from Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. Roy was arrested after he failed to respond to the Supreme Court's summons to appear in court in connection with the case in which Sahara owes millions of investors over 22,000 crore Indian rupees (3.5 billion dollars). AFP PHOTO/Prakash SINGH (Photo credit should read PRAKASH SINGH/AFP/Getty Images)

ADVERTISEMENT

The Delhi High court today stayed till next month the trial court proceedings and the warrant issued by it for the appearance of Sahara Chief Subrata Roy, now lodged in Tihar Jail, for allegedly not filing returns for a group company for the assessment year 2013-14.

The court also issued notice to the income tax department seeking their response before the next date of hearing. The court passed a similar order on the different petitions filed by Srivastava, J B Roy and Gupta. It also stayed the proceedings against the Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd, which was also made an accused in the case. The court’s order was passed on the plea moved by Sahara chief and its directors seeking stay of the warrant and proceedings before the trial court.

On March 24, the trial court had sought the presence of all the accused before it on April 15. Senior advocate Rajeev Nair, appearing for Roy, contended that the case filed by IT department does not stand on its own leg. “The applicant (Roy) has resigned from the company in September last year. He has nothing to do with the present case,” Nair said, adding that even the company made accused has filed IT return on March 23 for 2013-14.

The counsel said all the accused were outside the jurisdiction of Delhi and they cannot be tried here. Senior advocate N Hariharan, appearing for other accused, contended that the trial court order was bad in law and asked: “how can it initiate proceeding against the person residing outside Delhi.” The advocate also contended that “the company was in loss and even then we have filed the return. We are seeking recovery of over Rs 20 crore against the returns filed in March 2015.”

The IT department, on February 13 this year, had filed a complaint in the trial court against the company and its directors, Subrata Roy, J B Roy, O P Srivastava and Ranoj Das Gupta for not filing the return of the company for 2013-14. They have been booked for offence under Section 276 CC of the IT Act which deals with failure to furnish return of income in due time.

The IT department’s complaint said several notices were issued to the firm and its directors. In their letters, the accused had sought time to file the return but did not do so even after they were granted time. Thereafter, the complaint was filed in the court, it said.